What is "reformed egyptian"?

[notHagoth7]

"Reformed Egyptian", as copied into the Anthon "Caracters" transcript, looks a lot like a form of Latin shorthand known as Tironian Notes (notae Tironianae). In fact, from the comparison shown below, I would say it looks precisely like Tironian Notes shorthand.

The similarities are pretty impressive.

However, one should keep in mind that there are **thousands** of Tironian notes to draw from, so from a sample that large, what would be surprising is if there were NO similarities between the two samples.

However, for the sake of discussion, I'm certainly willing to entertain the notion that it's more than a coincidence. That these "Nephite" characters were used in medieval Europe. The question is, how did they get there in the first place? What's their origin story?

And for the bonus round, where did the young slave Tiro actually come from? (The answer is, we aren't told - but Cicero's brother's career and Cicero's personal letters offer a **very** intriguing clue or two.) And, Tiro first surfaces in contemporary Roman records in the fall of 54 BC, as a young man - **after** Hagoth's largest ship left for northern lands).

The manuscript in question was later shown to be written by Irish Catholic(s) in the 17th century making frequent use of Tironian notes.

Keating. Irish history is pretty intriguing. Recent linguistic studies demonstrate that a Semitic-speaking people lived there anciently, and that the Irish language bears evidence of that contact.

And as to notae, notae were reported be in use in Germania by ca. 100 AD. The Roman writer doesn't specifically say whether they were the same notae as Tiro's, but he does the same term to describe them.

Other characters in the Anthon Transcript appear to be in a later shorthand known Irish Ogham.

Let's say, just for the sake of discussion that they are a form of Ogham. What then? Even if that were true (and I've previously drawn the same inference), in what way would it negate the reality of Nephites? Or how would it disprove their record's promise that Lehi's descendants would one day spread to ALL nations?

Evidence of Nephite writing in other parts of the world would actually tend to confirm such prophecies. N'est-ce pas?

Between Tironian notes and Ogham shorthand, all (or essentially all) of the characters in the Anthon transcript can be identified.

Largely true. Yet oddly, it doesn't prove the point some think it does.

In fact, it suggests quite the opposite.

If Nephites have been in other nations (including Europe), as foretold, one would actually expect there to be occasional cultural hints of their existence. Correct?

In the end, however, the characters had nothing to do with Egyptian, or "reformed Egyptian" or Hebrew, or any other Semitic language. They are what they are (a Latin shorthand first developed in about the 3rd Century AD and used until the 17th).

As a small correction, they were actually introduced into Europe by Tiro, a contemporary of Cicero, Pompey, Julius Caesar, and Hagoth - which is a few centuries before what you've stated above.

The idea that they were "reformed Egyptian" came most likely from Joseph Smith's fertile imagination.

Oh? Aren't you and I are writing in a version of re-formed Egyptian characters here in this forum? Don't our modern characters descend from re-formed Egyptian, via re-formed Phoenician?

So as not to be banned for this clearly heretical assertion, let me note that the foregoing is my humble but considered opinion, based on the evidence presented here.

I haven't seen anyone get banned for making heretical assertions. They get banned for other things.

But I'll agree that a Tironian connection to the Anton Characters is an intriguing theory.

However, as I've said, when you connect all the dots, it expands and substantiates, rather than negates, the internal testimony of the Nephite record.

[notHagoth7]

As I edited my original post on this thread to indicate, most if not all, of the signs and symbols shown on the Anthon Transcript can be shown to be Irish miniscule, Tironian Note shorthand, or Ogham code shorthand, all having been used in the Irish MS to which Mack has access.

I simply love the possible Irish connection. I've written a few things about that in the past.

In addition to the early Semitic influence on Irish, are you familiar with some of the Irish origin accounts? They're pretty intriguing.

Anyone wishing to quibble about one or two of the hand-written signs or symbols should keep in mind that Joseph Smith may well have thrown in a few symbols of his own when creating his "Reformed Egyptian" script.

Why quibble?

I'd rather discuss the origin accounts of the Irish people.

According to their own accounts, where do they come from?

What do they have to say about the early inhabitants of their island?

[Sevenbak]

Now, if that is the case, why would they have Hebrew?

Are you saying that that is not the case? Nephi and Mormon tell us it is.

And since you brought it up, the hebrew was altered by them as well. It was after all their home language.

Mormon 9:33

And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

[notHagoth7]

I'll add another Irish tidbit:

Joseph Smith's DNA has been traced to northeastern Ireland.

And the Book of Mormon suggests that he would descend from the Nephites. (2 Ne. 3).

So thank you Arc for choosing to emphasize the possible connection between Nephite writing and Irish script.

And please feel free to bring up discussions like this much more often.

[Arc]

So thank you Arc for choosing to emphasize the possible connection between Nephite writing and Irish script.

You are welcome (I think).

So, do I take it, from the response of the TBM here assembled, that there is not one among you who is willing to apply Occam's razor and entertain the most likely explanation of the "Reformed Egyptian" from the Anthon Transcript?

The most likely explanation by far (that is the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions and contingencies) is that Joseph Smith simply used the signs and symbols contained in a facsimile from a 17th Century Irish MS shown him by Stephen Mack (and that nobody in the US had been able to translate at the time), as a part of his effort to perpetrate the fraud of the Book of Mormon (IMHO).

This is also the explanation most consistent with the facts and circumstances surrounding the unfounded claims regarding the papyri used in translating the Book of Abraham, the claim that the Kinderhook plates were written by a "-- descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt--", and Joseph Smith's unfortunate claim to Prof. Henry Caswell that a Greek Psalter was a "Dictionary of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics".

Joseph Smith's DNA has been traced to northeastern Ireland.

And the Book of Mormon suggests that he would descend from the Nephites. (2 Ne. 3).

I trust you understand that BoM passages which are taken to "prophesy" of the ethnic or national origins of Joseph Smith are of absolutely no consequence to those who believe that he had a hand in creating the text content in the first place.

[Whiskeypete]

And since you brought it up, the hebrew was altered by them as well. It was after all their home language.

Mormon 9:33

And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

It might have been their "home language" but the verse you quoted isn't necessarily evidence of such. Moroni is saying that the record would have had no imperfection if they could have written in Hebrew. He does NOT say that the reason for this is that it was his native or home language.

I think it is much more telling how often in the Book of Mormon there is a reference to people being "taught in the language of [their] fathers" in order to be able to read the writings of their prophets. It seems to me that knowledge of either Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian was a rarity among the people of the Nephites and even more so among the Lamanites. But such a theory would also support the idea that there were "others" in the land besides those specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon. I don't think that is allowed by those who subscribe to a sola-sundayschoola understanding of the Book of Mormon.

[Olavarria]

You are welcome (I think).

So, do I take it, from the response of the TBM here assembled, that there is not one among you who is willing to apply Occam's razor and entertain the most likely explanation of the "Reformed Egyptian" from the Anthon Transcript?

The most likely explanation by far (that is the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions and contingencies) is that Joseph Smith simply used the signs and symbols contained in a facsimile from a 17th Century Irish MS shown him by Stephen Mack (and that nobody in the US had been able to translate at the time), as a part of his effort to perpetrate the fraud of the Book of Mormon (IMHO).

This is also the explanation most consistent with the facts and circumstances surrounding the unfounded claims regarding the papyri used in translating the Book of Abraham, the claim that the Kinderhook plates were written by a "-- descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt--", and Joseph Smith's unfortunate claim to Prof. Henry Caswell that a Greek Psalter was a "Dictionary of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics".

I trust you understand that BoM passages which are taken to "prophesy" of the ethnic or national origins of Joseph Smith are of absolutely no consequence to those who believe that he had a hand in creating the text content in the first place.

I have a questian for everyone: are we even sure that the so-called "anton transcript" is the transcript Martin Harris showed Charles Anton?

He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calender given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends of the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained any thing else but "Egyptian Hieroglyphics."

Source

http://thedigitalvoice.com/enigma/essays/AAffair1.htm

The "anthon transcript" we have is written in vertical columns and lacks anything resembling a mexican zodiac or magick circle. Here we have the only surviving account of an eye witness who saw the transcript. Now, Im not saying he's perfectly accurate,but I am saying that this testimony should be taken into consideration.

[notHagoth7]

You are welcome (I think).

So, do I take it, from the response of the TBM here assembled, that there is not one among you who is willing to apply Occam's razor and

entertain the most likely explanation of the "Reformed Egyptian" from the Anthon Transcript?

Occam's razor is overrated.

"Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may.

...The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory. Therefore, according to the principle, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one. It is this fact which gives the lie to the common misinterpretation of Occam's Razor that "the simplest" one is usually the correct one.

...While not technically contradicting the razor's notion that (other things being equal) "the simplest explanation is always the best", the reverse corollary

[notHagoth7]

[CONT'D reply to Arc]

...In other words, when accounting for all the relevant evidence, which of the proposed answers best addresses and reconciles the various data points?

For example, Stout's hasty answer doesn't even attempt to fathom:

1) the origins of Tironian.

2) the origin of Tiro himself

3) evidence of Semitic language and culture in ancient Europe

4) evidence of seafaring people in Europe claiming to be Nefites and/or to descend from a Nefi

5) evidence of such peoples in Europe who claimed to have come from across the Atlantic

6) the correlation of such historical events with Nephite assertions

7) considerable physical evidence of pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic contact between the Old World and the New.

And so on.

In short, Stout's proposed solution, which fails to address cultural transatlantic realities, is hasty and contrived - because it ignores a whole mountain of relevant data. He only admits to transatlantic issues which work in his favor (post-17th century), and sweeps the rest to the side. If you think that reverting to Occam in such a context is evidence of a reasonable argument, I beg to differ.

Is there good reason why such data should be pushed to the side? Is it honest? Is it reasonable? Is it fair?

Things don't happen in a vacuum. Which is one of Occam's main flawed assumptions. We must consider the relevant context of the problem.

IF the Anton characters have any correlation to Tironian and/or to Ogham, the above evidence suggests that the relevant evidence predates Joseph...by eighteen and a half centuries or so. As such, one might want to cut the Nephite record a bit of slack - and give it a fair reading.

The most likely explanation by far (that is the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions and contingencies) is that Joseph Smith simply used the signs and symbols contained in a facsimile from a 17th Century Irish MS shown him by Stephen Mack (and that nobody in the US had been able to translate at the time), as a part of his effort to perpetrate the fraud of the Book of Mormon (IMHO).

Only if one dismisses a whole mountain of evidence.

This is also the explanation most consistent with the facts and circumstances surrounding the unfounded claims regarding the papyri used in translating the Book of Abraham, the claim that the Kinderhook plates were written by a "-- descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt--", and Joseph Smith's unfortunate claim to Prof. Henry Caswell that a Greek Psalter was a "Dictionary of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics".

I don't have an issue discussing such assertions. Are you willing to acknowledge there is vast more evidence corroborating the existence of an ancient Nephite people which Stout hasn't even attempted to address?

I trust you understand that BoM passages which are taken to "prophesy" of the ethnic or national origins of Joseph Smith are of absolutely no consequence to those who believe that he had a hand in creating the text content in the first place.

Even if reams of linguistic, archaeological, historical, and anthropological findings corroborate the implications of such prophecies?

Seriously. In such a setting, which one of us would be perceived as unreasonable?

[notHagoth7]

Again:

"While not technically contradicting the razor's notion that (other things being equal) "the simplest explanation is always the best", the reverse corollary

[notHagoth7]

I have a questian for everyone: are we even sure that the so-called "anton transcript" is the transcript Martin Harris showed Charles Anton?

...Roman letters inverted or placed sideways...

....The "anthon transcript" we have is written in vertical columns and lacks anything resembling a mexican zodiac or magick circle. Here we have the only surviving account of an eye witness who saw the transcript. Now, Im not saying he's perfectly accurate,but I am saying that this testimony should be taken into consideration.

Does this help?

Now, at the tear point, what was on the paper below the tear? A circle with characters perhaps?

So it could very well be the document in question.

[Mortal Man]

I have a questian for everyone: are we even sure that the so-called "anton transcript" is the transcript Martin Harris showed Charles Anton?

Source

http://thedigitalvoi...ys/AAffair1.htm

The "anthon transcript" we have is written in vertical columns and lacks anything resembling a mexican zodiac or magick circle. Here we have the only surviving account of an eye witness who saw the transcript. Now, Im not saying he's perfectly accurate,but I am saying that this testimony should be taken into consideration.

Hoffman's forgery is a better match to Anthon's descriptions.

The "circle divided into various compartments" from his February 17, 1834 letter could have been Jah-oh-eh, which represents the earth.

[Zakuska]

Small correction...

The "circle divided into various compartments" from his February 17, 1834 letter could have been Jah-oh-eh, which represents the earth in its four quarters.

[Arc]

[CONT'D reply to Arc]

Even if reams of linguistic, archaeological, historical, and anthropological findings corroborate the implications of such prophecies?

Seriously. In such a setting, which one of us would be perceived as unreasonable?

First of all, I certainly do not agree that there is any credible evidence whatsoever of genuine prophecy in the whole Joseph Smith / Book of Mormon / Book of Abraham / D&C fantasy space.

What would convince me to take my 102nd look at Joseph Smith as having a shred of credibility would be even one instance wherein Joseph Smith demonstrated that he could actually do that of which he boasted, namely a demonstrated, documented capability to translate a single word or passage in ancient language whatsoever. He could not do so, and Mormon apologists on other threads are admitting as much with more and more frequency and frankness.

With regard to application of Occam's razor, which as you (sort of) mentioned, goes hand in hand with weight of evidence considerations, please consider the following. Explanations or hypotheses that require magic or the supernatural to account for an observation are choices of absolute last resort when applying this "Law or Parsimony". In fact, in science such magical explanations are not even considered as viable hypotheses because they are not falsifiable and therefore not testable.

With that in mind, I would recommend that you stay away from "the razor" when dealing with rationalists, especially since your best counter argument seems to be a work of fiction.

[Doug the Hutt]

"Reformed Egyptian", as copied into the Anthon "Caracters" transcript, looks a lot like a form of Latin shorthand known as Tironian Notes (notae Tironianae). In fact, from the comparison shown below, I would say it looks precisely like Tironian Notes shorthand.

The column on the left in the illustration below shows characters from the Anthon "Caracters" transcript, created by Joseph Smith and carried by Martin Harris to Prof. Anthon, and Dr. Mitchell for their review.

The column on the right below shows corresponding Tironian note characters.

Where did Joseph Smith obtain these characters? Probably from Stephen Mack, who was known to have interest in, and access to, a manuscript or its facsimiles that was, at the time (before 1827), believed to be of Middle Eastern origin.

Mack died in 1827 and so Joseph Smith probably felt safe in using the characters as his "Reformed Egyptian". Since nobody then in the US could translate the Tironian notes, and they were thought to be of Phoenician origin, it probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

In fact, since Smith would have logically assumed that Mitchell or Anthon may have seen the MS in question but were unable to translate it, and further assumed that they also believed it to be of Phoenician origin, it probably looked like a sure bet.

The manuscript in question was later shown to be written by Irish Catholic(s) in the 17th century making frequent use of Tironian notes. Other characters in the Anthon Transcript appear to be in a later shorthand known Irish Ogham. Between Tironian notes and Ogham shorthand, all (or essentially all) of the non-Gaelic characters in the Anthon transcript can be identified.

In the end, however, the characters had nothing to do with Egyptian, or "reformed Egyptian" or Hebrew, or any other Semitic language. They are what they are (a Latin shorthand first developed in about the 3rd Century AD and used until the 17th). The idea that they were "reformed Egyptian" came most likely from Joseph Smith's fertile imagination.

If my reading on this issue is correct, our own Uncle Dale probably has some insight into this theory as well and so I hope he shows up to comment.

So as not to be banned for this clearly heretical assertion, let me note that the foregoing is my humble but considered opinion, based on the evidence presented here.

Edited on Nov. 27 to add: "non-Gaelic" . That is, to be perfectly clear regarding the Irish MS (written, as described by Irish Catholics in the 17th Century) the last sentence in paragraph 7 should read:

Between Tironian notes and Ogham shorthand, all (or essentially all) of the non-Gaelic characters in the Anthon transcript can be identified.

Very interesting. Thanks Arc.

[Joseph Antley]

How did Moroni know that the Hebrew and Egyptian had been altered? He must have had texts written in Old World Egyptian and Hebrew -- the brass plates, or Nephi's plates -- to compare his modern "reformed" versions to.

[notHagoth7]

...

[notHagoth7]

First of all, I certainly do not agree that there is any credible evidence whatsoever of genuine prophecy in the whole Joseph Smith / Book of Mormon....

Then let's set the miraculous aspect of things on the shelf for a moment, for the sake of discussion.

1. What if there was a historical people, who just happen to mirror much of the unique blend of cultural traits outlined in the Book of Mormon?

Seriously. What then?

2. And what if there is considerable evidence that such a civilization existed - at least in northern Europe, on the Atlantic coast?

What then?

3. And what if they claimed an earlier ancient origin from across the ocean.

What then?

One could of course conclude that Joseph somehow got lucky on all the cultural details contained in the Book of Mormon - which just happen to uniquely parallel a now-known culture.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for letting you believe or doubt whatever you wish.

But you've made a claim against the Nephite record that doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny.

Please pull up a chair and reason with me - if you're willing to engage the evidence.

If not, have an awesome weekend.

[Arc]

Then let's set the miraculous aspect of things on the shelf for a moment, for the sake of discussion.

1. What if there was a historical people, who just happen to mirror much of the unique blend of cultural traits outlined in the Book of Mormon?

Seriously. What then?

2. And what if there is considerable evidence that such a civilization existed - at least in northern Europe, on the Atlantic coast?

What then?

3. And what if they claimed an earlier ancient origin from across the ocean.

What then?

One could of course conclude that Joseph somehow got lucky on all the cultural details contained in the Book of Mormon - which just happen to uniquely parallel a now-known culture.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for letting you believe or doubt whatever you wish.

But you've made a claim against the Nephite record that doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny.

Please pull up a chair and reason with me - if you're willing to engage the evidence.

If not, have an awesome weekend.

I'm listening.

Please go ahead and lay out your case.

Since I am a scientist and not a historian, I may need time to respond to new information of a cultural or historical nature.

However, I have lived in the UK and traveled extensively in Scotland and Ireland and love the place, so let's hear what you've got.

[notHagoth7]

I'm listening.

Please go ahead and lay out your case.

Since I am a scientist and not a historian, I may need time to respond to new information of a cultural or historical nature.

However, I have lived in the UK and traveled extensively in Scotland and Ireland and love the place, so let's hear what you've got.

Sounds good.

I'll launch a new thread since the discussion would derail this one.

[Arc]

Sounds good.

I'll launch a new thread since the discussion would derail this one.

Okay. Will be looking for it.

(Checked about 10:00 pm EST and did not see a new thread. Will check tomorrow.)

[Olavarria]

How did Moroni know that the Hebrew and Egyptian had been altered? He must have had texts written in Old World Egyptian and Hebrew -- the brass plates, or Nephi's plates -- to compare his modern "reformed" versions to.

Oh, without a doubt.

[notHagoth7]

Okay. Will be looking for it.

(Checked about 10:00 pm EST and did not see a new thread. Will check tomorrow.)

Arc,

I created the new thread here.

It's currently in the Social forum. (But I've requested that it be moved.)

See you there.

[Lars Umlaut]

5 stars for Arc's contributions. Absolutely fascinating.